WAOA 2012: Approximation and Online Algorithms pp 229-241 | Cite as
Some Anomalies of Farsighted Strategic Behavior
Abstract
We investigate Subgame Perfect Equilibria, that better capture the rationality of the players in sequential games with respect to other more myopic dynamics like the classical Nash one. We prove that the sequential price of anarchy, that is the worst case ratio between the social performance at a Subgame Perfect Equilibrium and the best possible one, is exactly 3 in cut and consensus games. Moreover, we improve the known Ω(n) lower bound for unrelated scheduling to \(2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n})}\) and refine the corresponding upper bound to 2 n , where n is the number of players. Finally, we determine essentially tight bounds for fair cost sharing games by proving that the sequential price of anarchy is between n + 1 − H n and n. A surprising lower bound of (n + 1)/2 is also determined for the singleton case.
Our results are quite interesting and counterintuitive, as they show that a farsighted behavior generally may lead to a worse performance with respect to myopic one; in fact, Nash equilibria and simple Nash rounds, consisting of a single (myopic) move per player starting from the empty state achieve a price of anarchy which result to be lower or equivalent to the sequential price of anarchy in almost all the considered cases.
Keywords
Nash Equilibrium Subgame Perfect Equilibrium Congestion Game Strong Equilibrium Sequential GamePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Aumann, R.J.: Acceptable points in general cooperative n-person games. In: Tucker, A.W., Luce, R.D. (eds.) Contributions to the Theory of Games. Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 40, pp. 287–324. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1959)Google Scholar
- 2.Albers, S.: On the Value of Coordination in Network Design. SIAM Journal on Computing 38(6), 2273–2302 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Albers, S., Lenzner, P.: On Approximate Nash Equilibria in Network Design. In: Saberi, A. (ed.) WINE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6484, pp. 14–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Kleinberg, J.M., Tardos, É., Wexler, T., Roughgarden, T.: The Price of Stability for Network Design with Fair Cost Allocation. SIAM Journal on Computing 38(4), 1602–1623 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Andelman, N., Feldman, M., Mansour, Y.: Strong price of anarchy. In: Proceedings of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 189–198 (2007)Google Scholar
- 6.Balcan, M.F.: Leading dynamics to good behavior. SIGecom Exchanges 10, 19–22 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bhalgat, A., Chakraborty, T., Khanna, S.: Approximating pure Nash equilibrium in cut, party affiliation, and satisfiability games. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC), pp. 73–82 (2010)Google Scholar
- 8.Bilò, V., Fanelli, A., Flammini, M., Melideo, G., Moscardelli, L.: Designing Fast Converging Cost Sharing Methods for Multicast Transmissions. Theory of Computing Systems 47(2), 507–530 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Bilò, V., Fanelli, A., Flammini, M., Moscardelli, L.: When ignorance helps: Graphical multicast cost sharing games. Theoretical Computer Science 411(3), 660–671 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Bilò, V., Flammini, M.: Extending the Notion of Rationality of Selfish Agents: Second Order Nash Equilibria. Theoretical Computer Science 412(22), 2296–2311 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Caragiannis, I., Flammini, M., Kaklamanis, C., Kanellopoulos, P., Moscardelli, L.: Tight Bounds for Selfish and Greedy Load Balancing. Algorithmica 61(3), 606–637 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Charikar, M., Karloff, H.J., Mathieu, C., Naor, J., Saks, M.E.: Online multicast with egalitarian cost sharing. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pp. 70–76 (2008)Google Scholar
- 13.Chekuri, C., Chuzhoy, J., Lewin-Eytan, L., Naor, J., Orda, A.: Non-Cooperative Multicast and Facility Location Games. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 25(6), 1193–1206 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Chien, S., Sinclair, A.: Convergence to approximate nash equilibria in congestion games. In: SODA, pp. 169–178. SIAM (2007)Google Scholar
- 15.Christodoulou, G., Koutsoupias, E.: The price of anarchy of finite congestion games. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 67–73 (2005)Google Scholar
- 16.Christodoulou, G., Mirrokni, V.S., Sidiropoulos, A.: Convergence and Approximation in Potential Games. In: Durand, B., Thomas, W. (eds.) STACS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3884, pp. 349–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Czumaj, A., Krysta, P., Vöcking, B.: Selfish traffic allocation for server farms. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 287–296 (2002)Google Scholar
- 18.Epstein, A., Feldman, M., Mansour, Y.: Strong equilibrium in cost sharing connection games. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC), pp. 84–92 (2007)Google Scholar
- 19.Fanelli, A., Flammini, M., Moscardelli, L.: The Speed of Convergence in Congestion Games under Best-Response Dynamics. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 8(3), 25 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Fanelli, A., Moscardelli, L.: On best response dynamics in weighted congestion games with polynomial delays. Distributed Computing 24(5), 245–254 (2011)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Gourvès, L., Monnot, J.: On Strong Equilibria in the Max Cut Game. In: Leonardi, S. (ed.) WINE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5929, pp. 608–615. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Paes Leme, R., Syrgkanis, V., Tardos, É.: The curse of simultaneity. In: Proceedings of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS), pp. 60–67. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
- 24.Paes Leme, R., Syrgkanis, V., Tardos, É.: Sequential Auctions and Externalities. In: SODA, pp. 869–886. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
- 25.Mirrokni, V.S., Vetta, A.: Convergence issues in competitive games. In: Jansen, K., Khanna, S., Rolim, J.D.P., Ron, D. (eds.) APPROX and RANDOM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3122, pp. 183–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Nash, J.F.: Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 36, 48–49 (1950)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Nash, J.F.: Non-Cooperative Games. Annals of Mathematics 54(2), 286–295 (1951)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, É., Vazirani, V.V.: Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A course in game theory. MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
- 30.Roughgarden, T., Tardos, É.: How bad is selfish routing? Journal of the ACM 49(2), 236–259 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Shapley, L.S.: The value of n-person games. In: Contributions to the Theory of Games, pp. 31–40. Princeton University Press (1953)Google Scholar